2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Yes, deposits do motivate people. The reality is that the small deposit amount at present has not kept up with the times. If the amount could be raised, and keeping the ability to redeem the deposits at local stores, then it can still work. While our retailers cringe at the idea of continuing their role in the redeeming bottles and cans, one must remember that they benefit from the sale of these products.

One need only take a look at the sorry state of Oregon's riverside areas to know that too many people think little of redeeming bottles and cans, with the small 5 cent amount being too little to make them notice. Lets raise the amount to encourage even the lowest common denominator person out there take the time to recycle their cans and bottles.

The Clackamas and Willamette Rivers are case in point for the need to make the incentive to take them back more relevant.

Thanks,
Travis

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

For the Willamette River when one thinks of toxics, it is easy to focus on areas that are active Superfund sites. The federal CERCLA law recognizes such areas like Portland Harbor as highly contaminated sites, and sets in motion a major effort to clean them up. I think it is important that this is recognized in your report. The cleanup, going on since 2001, and before in some cases, is forcing many private companies to gather data where needed, and develop a plan to clean their sites up. This is being overseen by the US EPA in the in water areas of the Willamette, and DEQ, with EPA oversight, in the upland areas.

The big question in relation to the final few miles of the Willamette River is to what degree will companies agree with DEQ and EPA requirements to actually take responsibility and clean their sites to the appropriate level? The hope is that we will avoid significant legal challenges by those who are reponsonsible. We are just beginning to get to that BIG question in this cleanup. Given the many smaller sites that make up this Superfund site, we need the EPA to provide real leadership to ensure that these sites are cleaned up to levels safe for human and aquatic health.

Cleanup of this area is also critical to the many spring chinook that pass through, making their way far upriver where millions of dollars have been spent, and will continue to be spent to improve Habitat.

You might consider a show about the Willamette River's overall health.

Thanks.

Travis

posted 5 years ago
view in context

As others have indicated here, it is one thing to commit a crime of sabotage and property destruction. It is another thing to incite "terror" and to threaten human life. Any study of terrorism worldwide reveals that terrorism is a far different thing than, however wrong it may be, property destruction for a cause.

The federal government has utlized the terrorism term as a case of simple political convenience in the past few years.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context